Afhq Assistants Dr Asociation vs M/o Defence on 6 November 2026

1. Applicants have filed the present OA in representative capacity challenging an order dated 15.06.2015, whereby representation of the applicants for refixation of seniority in Assistant Grade, has been rejected and competent authority has decided to adopt the principle of vacancy year for fixation of seniority, prospectively in terms of O.M. dated 04.03.2014. So also challenged made to the seniority list dated 09.12.2013 and 24.04.2015 with all consequential benefits.

2. Pleadings in the matter are stated to be complete and parties are directed to exchange pleadings and no further adjournment shall be granted as matter relates to year 2016 and more than 51 adjournments have already been granted.

3. Re-notify on 15.12.2026 for final hearing with O.A. No. 4873/2025 for analogous hearing. O.A. No. 4873/2025

4. Applicants have filed present O.A. stating that they are D.P. and were promoted to the posts of ASOs and initially shown senior over and above the directly recruited ASOs but vide impugned final seniority list dated 01.10.2025, has been issued lowering the applicants down in the seniority position and kept the seniority of directly recruited ASOs over and above the applicants- the departmental promotee with all consequential benefits. M.A. No. 4344/2026

5. Application for impleadment as private respondents being interested and proper party in the O.A.

6. Learned counsel for the proposed interveners vehemently contended that in the present O.A., the challenge is to the final seniority list dated 01.10.2025 of ASOs and proposed interveners are placed in the impugned seniority list dated 01.10.2025 over and above the original applicants in the present O.A. Hence the proposed interveners are affected, interested and necessary and proper party in the O.A. and seeking permission to intervene in the matter for just and proper adjudication of the present O.A.

7. Learned counsel for the original applicants in the O.A. and non- applicants in the M.A. vociferously canvased and submitted that earlier the proposed interveners have filed O.A. No. 113/2018 and later on dismissed as withdrawn on 17.07.2025 without any liberty, hence the proposed interveners, though are part of impugned final seniority list dated 01.10.2025, cannot be permitted to intervene in the matter.

8. Ms. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the original applicants much emphasised that the official respondents are only parties being necessary parties and proposed interveners are neither necessary party nor proper party in this case.

9. Heard the parties. We have considered the matter.

10. Admitted facts in the case in hand that the applicants are departmental promotees and proposed interveners are the direct recruits in the impugned final seniority list of A.S.Os as on 01.12.2024 dated 01.10.2025. Original Applicants in the O.A. have only arrayed official respondents as respondents and have not arrayed anyone as affected party and not a single affected, has been made as private respondents.

11. The dispute in the present case is the seemingly never ending war between promotees and direct recruits as to inter-se-seniority in grade of A.S.Os.

12. The short issue for determination is whether proposed interveners are necessary or proper parties inter-se-seniority dispute of impugned final seniority list dated 01.10.2025.

13. In A. Janardhana Vs. Union of India, (1938) 3 SCC 601 and in V.P. Srivastava and others Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, (1996) 7 SCC 759. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that very principle of "determination of seniority" made by the State Government is under challenge and for such a case State is the necessary party who has been impleaded. It has been held by this Court in the case of G.M. South Central Railway Vs. A.V.R. Siddhantti, (1974) 4 SCC 335.

14. In Case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Noida (1992) 2 SCC 524. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Plaintiff is no doubt dominus litis and is not bound to sue every possible adverse claimant in the same suit. He may choose to implead only those persons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touch stone of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. In the light of the clear language of the rules, it cannot be said that a person cannot be added as defendant even in a case where his presence is necessity to enable the courts to decide the matter effectively. A. "necessary party" is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A "proper party" is one whose absence an effective Order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of of all the facts and Circumstances of a case. If the intervener has a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject matter of the existing actions, the Court has power to allow to join the intervener so as to give effect to the primary object of the Order, which is to avoid multiplicity of actions. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person "necessary party" is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved that would only make him a necessary witness and not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some questions involved. The person must be directly or legally interested in the action that answer i.e. he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights.

15. Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC confers power on the Court to permit a person to be impleaded as a party in a suit who is necessary party or who is proper party.

16. In the Case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regency Convention Center and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 417. Their Lordship considered the discretion of the Court to add parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC and held that the general rule of dominus litis in this regard to the impleadment of parties, the Court has discretion to add a person as party who is a "necessary party" or "proper party". "The necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and whose whole absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a necessary party is not impleaded the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "Proper Party" is a party who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all the matters in dispute in the suit though he need not to be a person in favour or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessarily party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him against the wishes of the plaintiff.

17. Similar view is expressed in the cases Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (1992) 2 SCC 524, Kasturi vs Iyyam perumal & Ors (2005) 6 SCC 733, Sumitbai & Ors. vs. Paras finance Co. (2007) 10 SCC and V.N. Krishna Murthy Vs Ravi Kumar, (2020) 9 SCC 501.

18. The other provision Order 1 Rule 8A CPC empowers a court to allow a person or body of the persons to present their opinion on a question of law and to take part in the proceedings if satisfied that such person or body is interested in a question of law directly and substantially in issue and it is necessary in the public interest.

19. The fact of the matter in one hand that applicants-the departmental promotees have challenged final seniority list of A.S.Os dated 01.10.2025, to set-aside and place over and above the direct-recruits-the proposed interveners and to re-cast fresh seniority in terms of the ratio laid down in case of K.Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v/s Ningam Siro & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689.

20. The proposed interveners have filed O.A. No. 113/2018 in year 2018 and withdrawn vide order dated 17.07.2025, thereafter, official respondents issued impugned final seniority list of ASOs dated 01.10.2025 (Annexure A-1). Learned counsel for the applicants has not disputed the fact that proposed interveners are placed as direct recruits in the impugned seniority list dated 01.10.2025 and said list was not under challenge in O.A. No. 113/2018 by the proposed interveners.

21. Indisputedly, the proposed interveners are affected party in this case and their presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate the dispute of inter-se-seniority between promotees and direct recruits- ASOs.

22. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are also of the considered opinion that the proposed interveners are person aggrieved and also being interested, necessary and proper party and deserve to be impleaded as private respondents in representative capacity.

23. M.A. No. 4344/2026, is hereby allowed and the amended memo of parties is taken on record for just and complete adjudication of the matter.

24. Issue notice to newly added private respondents. Mr. Ramesh Rawat, learned counsel for newly added private respondents accepts notice and seeks three weeks' time to file written statement.

25. Learned counsel for private respondents is directed to positively file written submissions on or before next date of listing and no further time shall be granted.

26. All the parties are directed to complete the pleadings and exchange the affidavits and no further adjournment shall be granted in the matter.

27. Re-notify on 15.12.2026 for final hearing along with O.A. No. 115/2016.

Rajinder Kashyap Member (A) Ajay Pratap Singh Member (J) Akansha Soni ( steno 'd' )